DO ATHEISTS SUPPORT HOMOSEXUALITY?

I have noticed atheists coming out in support of homosexuals. Do some feel that supporting homosexuality is a necessary part of atheism ? Or, do they support homosexuality simply because religion opposes it? What is the attitude of atheists in general to homosexuality? Where homosexuality deserves support and where it should not be supported?

Replies to This Discussion

...I would still hold that if homosexuality can find cures, then it is desirable to do so.

You have not given any reasons for this. Calling it a disorder is just a way to rephrase that it is undesirable. Why is it undesirable? Let's consider that the survival of the species is actually threatened by population growth at this point. Let's also consider how unlikely it is that the promotion of homosexual behavior will result in a dangerous decline in reproduction.

You may be an atheist........But you are not an ethical one. You may have shed your religious indoctrination but you are far from shedding the cultural flaws resulting from religion.Maybe you do not wish to be ethical??....but if you do, I think you should seriously rethink your position on sexual equality ( or in your case the lack of it)........

This reads like the biased views of the most right wing religious zealots. I'm sure you don't mean it to use such inflammatory terms such as 'noble' and 'questionable'....

"I must once again state emphatically that I have no desireof offending anyone,"

Then be careful how you phrase things.

"As far as I am aware, the medical science says thathomosexuality is neither a medical nor psycological disorder but does not saywhat exactly it is."

So you didn't read the quotes I posted for you about how studies show that homosexuality is normal?

"28% of these [gay] marriages had already ended in divorce or death.”"

well, that's lower than the percentages in heterosexual unions

'Homosexuals practice anal and oral sex' Guess what - so do heterosexuals! Is that also evidence of abnormality or a 'disorder'?

Come on, this is a site that promotes reason and logic, and you're not doing every well on either count. Your quotes are unconnected, specious, and don't seem entirely pertinent. It reads like you're trying to make science somehow fit your personal views on homosexuality. Your ideas lack consistency and your claim of being unbiased in your investigation is not entirely believable because of some of your phraseology.

Madhukar, you respond to my saying that others' sexual practices do no harm, by talking about the noble emotion of wanting kids. What is so noble, in this world of over 7 billion humans, (most of them in India) in breeding yet MORE of us? Gay sex produces no kids, that makes it better suited for today's situation.

seconded.........my wife and I have no kids for this very reason. We are lucky that we can secure our love by being wed.....In our country (Australia) If we were both the same sex this would be impossible. Please Evolve your views Madhukar , I shore wish our government would!.

You are pointing to gay sex, comparing it with population in India. Since you may not be aware of situation in India, let me explain sometinng. Limiting family size is becoming very common in India. I myselrf know not less tham 15 families who have restricted number children to just one and taken a stop. If the population has expanded faster, when no proper methods were available, who can be blamed? Perhaps, as you say, homosexuality might have helped then, but not now. When I started this disscussion, I did expect some stormy discussions, but calling names and hitting below the belt were not expected.

I have done some deep thinking on this subject over a few years and I am willing to go further deeper. It is impossible to answer so many viewpoints of so many people at a time. People are doing the very thing I am accused of. When we discuss a serious subject, we must be prepared for serious differences of opinions. I cant accept some opinion just because some says some thing, and, on the other I am quite willing to try to put forward my thoughts without a clamour. I hope I will be able to continue this discussion without personal attacks, however big may be the differences in opinions. I belong to a place which is very different from yours and a serious difference in opinions is expected.

I am a vegan, anarchist, atheist, non drinker, non smoker in Australia.....Believe me it is possible to define your own ethics and go against societal norms. So living in a different place is no excuse for adopting the ways of the masses and the dubious ethics they follow......cheers

Kind regards to you Madhukar........Do not despair, challenge your own views and evolve. I wish I was not indoctrinated into eating animal products, but I was and when I gained enough knowledge to overcome my ignorance...I evolved. I feel you will come to this view on sexuality, Then you should read this entire thread again and I think you may have a different perspective. cheers

So some people are cutting back on having kids. That's good to hear. Still, I don't see how that makes heterosexuality better than homosexuality. Having NO kids will still lower the population more than having one.

(I've actually had someone say to me "but if everyone went gay/decided to stop having kids humanity would go extinct" but while we have 7 billion this is just NOT a valid argument at all. It's not going to happen, or by the time we noticed we were endangered, we'd have some kids.)

Madhukar, you brought up the "straight people are superior because they can have babies" argument.

Heterosexual sex is just as recreation-centered as homosexual, but it happens to result in babies. I will be impressed by the sacred act of heterosexual reproduction if our population ever gets down to 1000 or so, the way other animals' populations are being massacred because of human overpopulation. Until then, I'm not going to be in awe of the heterosexual ability to make babies.

Not every person who has reproduced is heterosexual. Bisexuals and homosexuals can both get pregnant and get others pregnant. It's just that with homosexuals they specifically choose to create life rather than do it by accident.

You are also mentioning "disgusting things that gays do". I don't see the point of this other than to demonize people, or to say that it's OK to be prejudiced because of statistics. Which means picturing all the things you think someone is doing because they're gay. I already brought up "eww" as a non-religious reason that people are anti-gay. You can be grossed out all you want but it still is morally neutral.

What is the point of commenting on the life expectancy of gays? Or the length of marriage? Should we analyze various groups likelihood of staying married, and deny them the right to marriage because they are statistically likely to get divorced? If that's the case we should not allow celebrities to marry. I've mostly seen evidence of very long-term gay relationships that were not legally recognized.

Everyone has a rectum, therefore everyone can do the things you mentioned (ever look at porn? A lot of guys are fixated on doing that to their girlfriend.) And "oral sex"? Really? You don't think straight people do that? (Once again, check out porn.) I feel sorry for anyone whose partner won't do it.

I think that some people's sexual orientations can gradually change either way in the course of a lifetime, but it can't be forced. Sexual orientation is taste in people, and tastes can change but you can't force yourself to like or dislike something. It's only religious organizations that have claimed homosexuality can be cured or changed. Many of the religious leaders who claimed this were then caught in gay scandals. So NO, homosexuality can't be cured.

It's interesting that you asked this question in the same post as making this statement:

As far as I am aware, the medical science says that homosexuality is neither a medical nor psycological disorder...

According to the belief that sexual orientation can be changed through conditioning, you can assign an "illness" label to exclusive homosexuality and maybe "treat" it into bisexuality, or even exclusive heterosexuality. But the same is also true of the opposite. You can determine that exclusive heterosexuality is an "illness" and "treat" it through conditioning as well. The impermanence of sexual orientation is not evidence that it is a disorder.

Reproductive ability is one important reason for evolution and life forms on this planet have been endowed with this natural ability.

So argue against exclusive homosexuality. Non-exclusive homosexual attraction is not a threat in this case. Bisexuality should be completely acceptable. Also, we were not "endowed" with natural abilities. That's a religious phrase.

Homosexuality completely ignores this noble human emotion and is centered around questionable pleasure.

What makes this pleasure "questionable"?

If animal pleasure can be given so much importance, why not legalise extra-marital relations? Or, remove the institution of marriage from our social system?

I really don't follow your logic here. So it's not about homosexuality; it's about pleasure? You feel that, no matter the sex dynamics of a relationship, sex should not be for pleasure? Also, I can almost guarantee that all of us support legalization of extra-martial relations. Personally, I consider it an abuse of the people to attempt to outlaw that.

As far as removing marriage from the social system, I think it can be done. A lot will have to change, since (at least in the U.S.) so much relies on marriage to determine rights and privileges and exemptions (taxes, custody, insurance, hospital visitation, etc). I don't think supporting homosexuality has anything to do with that though.